UNION OF INDIA versus M/S. MUSTAFA AND NAJIBAI TRADING CO. AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 16-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
MIS. MUSTAFA AND NAJIBAI TRADING CO. AND ORS. 
JULY 16, 1998 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND V.N. KHARE. JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962-
Ss.2, 30 (1)- 24 hour time limit to file the import manifest/ import report 
C to be reckoned from the time the vessel arrives at the customs port- The outer 
anchorage is part of Bombay port and the Import General Manifest Should 
have been delivered within 24 !I ours from the time the vessel arrived at that 
point-Discretion to accept the manifest after expiry of the time limit arises 
only when the import manifest is delivered to the Customs-Not when there 
is no delivery at all. 
D 
S. 111. ( d)-The confiscation of goods has no relation to the intention 
of the owners/master of the vessel since it is an action in rem against the 
goods which have controverted viz. not mentioned in the import manifest/ 
report the law and are dutiable/prohibited, are liable to confiscation. 
E 
S. 111. (j) Criteria for confiscation is whether the goods are dutiable/ 
prohibited and whether they are mentioned in the manifest/ import report as 
per the regulations. Mens rea has no bearing on the confiscation. 
S. 124. Notice to owner of goods not mandatory-Notice to person 
responsible for the contravention is 
substantial compliance- As Show 
F Cause Notice was issued to the owners of the vessel, the agents etc. and no 
prejudice caused to the owner of the goods, there is no !aches and the owners 
not being present, had no personal knowledge and could not offer any other 
explanation than that offered by the master of the vessel and the agents-
Import Manifest (Vessels) Regulations-1971 R 3, 5(1), Imports awi Export 
(Control) Act 1947-S 3, Imports (Control) Order-1955-Clauses 3, 11 (e), 
G Constitution of India-Article 226 and 227-High Court cannot re-appreciate 
evidence before the Tribunal and upset its findings based only on such re-
appreciation, except when it is contrary to actual evidence or is perverse. 
Customs Collector pa~sed an order of confiscation of a vessel along 
with its cargo on the ground among others, that the Import Manifest was not 
H filed, the vessel violattd rules by entering without payment of Port charges 
708 
U.0.1. v. MUSTAFA AND NAJIBAI TRADING CO. 
709 
etc., after conducting an investigation, and serving Show Cause notices to A 
which replies were filed by the parties. On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the 
order of the Collector agreeing with his findings that the explanation for 
arriving at Bombay to repair the Radar and V.H.F and to collect cargo, wa~ 
not tenable, that the vessel had not come for a bonafide purpose. The High 
Court relied on State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, [ 1951 [ SCR 682 and B 
Radhakrishnan v. Union of India, [ 1965] 2 SCR 213 and reversed the order 
of the Collector holding that S 30 (3) of the Customs Act, was not followed, 
that notice under S. 124 was not given, that the 24 hour time limit prescribed 
under S. 30(1) started to run only after payment of Port Trust charges, that 
the goods were in transit and the visit to the port was not illegal, though at 
the same time agreeing that the goods were prohibited goods. Hence this C 
appeal. Allowing the appeal this Court. 
HELD: I. The impugned judgment of the High Court setting aside the 
order for confiscation of the goods passed under Sections 111 (d) and 111 
(I) of the Customs Act cannot be upheld. The High Court, while exercising 
its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, has reversed D 
the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Collector and the Tribunal 
regarding the avowed purpose of the voyage of the vessel M from Karachi 
to Bombay, viz, picking up additional cargo and repair of Radar. Disagreeing 
with the findings recorded by the collector as well as the tribunal, the High 
Court has accepted the explanation offered by the owners and the master of E 
the vessel M for its coming to Bombay from Karachi. The High Court has 
held that three was nothing to show that there was any fraudulent intention 
on the part of the owners of the vessel, the Captain and the agents at Karachi 
in the vessel M's coming to Bombay from Karachi. [725-H; 726-A-B] 
2. While exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the F 
Constitution it is not open the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence 
produced before the subordinate tribunal and on the basis of such re-
appreciation of the evidence arrive at a finding different from that recor-ded 
by such trib

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.